The data gave me a good stiff arm. The electoral idolness is remarkably consistent across age ranges, with eligible Asians and Hispanics voting at just 75% of the rate eligible whites do (blacks vote at 90% of the white rate).

The following graph shows the racial distribution of votes cast in the 2016 US presidential election, by age:

Predicting how things will play out decades in the future is fraught with peril, but this suggests that a mid-century America where whites no longer constitute a majority of the population will still be an America where whites comprise a majority of voters.

Assuming the US makes it to the turn of the 22nd century in something close to its current political form--a precarious assumption to say the least in my view--whites will have only recently forfeited their electoral majority.

Whites are electoral kangz. We are positioned to remain so well into the future. Appeal to and then deliver on ourselves and our posterity and enjoy permanent ruling majority status. It's not easy, but it is fairly simple.

Speaking of, barring misfortune the Epigones should be above replacement by June of next year.

That whites are so much more electorally (and civically) minded means that whites can become a dominant plurality, if the US doesn't splinter apart. For example, I expect that once the white Boomers die off, woke/based whites will demand that some kind of civics test will need to be passed before citizens can vote, which would disproportionately lower NAM voting numbers.

After 2012, a number of Republicans thought winning the presidency was a lost cause for them, and thought about retaining their dominance in Congress for as long as possible. Trump proved them wrong, but that kind of thinking might need to be reheated in the future if Trump's presidency fails to improve our demographic situation.

Granted, this situation may not prove tenable forever, but it would also give time for preparing for a smoother political dissolution.

FWIW, probably the smoothest way for political dissolution to occur (if Trump fails and America's demographics get worse) would be for Republican congressmen to obstruct just about everything pozzed the Democratic Party proposes. In 2040, the Democrats will try to pass a bill in Congress that mandates that every student must watch hours of gay porn to pass sex ed. Of course the tranny Democratic president will support it, but the red core of America will veto the bill. At that point, the case can be made that if white Americans can have their own ethnostate deep in the interior, the blue pozzed areas can have their kids watch gay porn. At that point the Dems will be glad for the ethnostate to emerge.

I don't think blue states have that option because the areas where they live are so geographically tiny. Secession will be on the terms of red state whites.

Coincidences? It'll be increasingly desperately portrayed as "xenophobia", "bigotry", in response to the "changing face of America". I don't expect much in the way of novelty from the forces of the Great Erasure.

Anon,

Responding to those non-electoral responses will also be largely a question of will.

Sid,

The big question is whether or not, with an impending downgrade to minority status approaching, whites will lay down their arms in what Derb calls the cold civil war and unite against a common opposition. Not all whites will do so, but with BLMers saying things like "liberalism is white supremacy", many SWPLs will.

After 2012, a number of Republicans thought winning the presidency was a lost cause for them

Indeed, I could be included there, though I thought after 2016 that was more likely to be the case because of how unpopular an inevitable Hillary Clinton would be.

Wrt political dissolution, that sounds like a plausible path, and a one to hope for, because it's a situation that doesn't necessitate violence at all. Amicable separation. It's what we need.

but that kind of thinking might need to be reheated in the future if Trump's presidency fails to improve our demographic situation.

That's already out of the question. Trump made nationalism cool, and he demonstrated to whites that we can win. That trend is far more dominant than the brown demographic trend, which is largely based on immigration projections that are now a worst case scenario. And increasing brown demographics, plus all the related SJW factors, naturally fuel the fires of American nationalism.

At this point, the Globalist's only option is to get the browns to shut up, give Trump and white America everything we want, and bide their time for a few more generations until nationalism goes away...during which mixing will continue to occur naturally.

But the browns can't be shut up. Even if the Globalist masterminds see the problem, they don't have that level of control over their political machine. The machine would destroy itself from cogdis.

Scott Adams says we've reached the point where people say, "I don't like what he's doing, but Trump is an effective leader." That sounds bad, but that is a huge leap from Trump is racist/Hitler/starting WWIII. Concurrently, we're also seeing more normies being open and honest about how they disdain the anti-white rhetoric coming out of the Democratic Party.

DissidentRight,

I like your optimism, but I also like being prepared for a number of potential situations we may find ourselves in. I hope you're right about the rise of nationalism, but let's also be ready if it crashes down, is just half-successful, or wins out but creates problems we didn't anticipate.

- One section of the article mentions that Sebastain Kurz represents a change towards "personality politics". Basically, the charisma/gravitas/strength of the politician is becoming very important; It's not 1980, or 2000 anymore where politicians basically promised to get out of the way because, well, The People/The Free Market/Our Glorious Magic could and would create prosperity and freedom for anyone who put their mind to it. This is big, folks. The Right in particular used to beat the drum like crazy, back in the 70's-2000's, that they believed in "personal responsibility". No god fearing, wholesome American should ever expect to be rescued. Even the DLC Left surreptitiously succumbed to this attitude in the 90's; in some ways the Clinton Admin. was more libertarian friendly (not just on social issues, but even economic ones) than Reagan was! We've now got lots of high profile figures on the Right embracing "victimhood" politics, to the point that some on the Left are complaining that it's just not fair for the Right to make this adjustment in their rhetoric.

- Complaining about immigration and even vowing to stop it altogether are far less taboo in European politics. Part of this is due to demographics; most of Europe, even the political and intellectual castes, is still ethnically gentile European. America allowed blacks and Jews to gain political and philosophical power far beyond their numbers, subsequent to WW2, and our ability to criticize anti-gentile white policies has grown weaker and weaker. Minority rule, essentially. Though Europe has plenty of yuppie traitors, their ability to corrupt is blunted by their being less ethnically diverse. Compare that to America, where "ethnic" whites (Irish-Catholics and Jews especially) in the Northeast often have a very demeaning attitude towards Germanic Midwesterners and especially Scots-Irish Southerners. Blacks, it goes without saying, are even more deranged in their prejudices and jealousy.

In no European country will you find tons of different ethnic groups (including white ones) vying for their piece of the pie, like you see in America. Russia does have a few distinct ethnic minorities, but 80% (or whatever) of white Russians are well, Russian. Nobody talks about being Irish-Russian. WRT Austria, Austrian whites are mostly Teutonic with some Slavic mixed in. It's often noted that Southern European countries have more diversity with their whites, but even then, it's not like France has 1/5 of its' people claiming to be Polish/ 1/5 claiming to be Irish, 1/6 claiming to be Scottish, 1/8 claiming to be Swedish, and 1/8 claiming to be "French (like how Southern American whites say they're American)".

And Europe has way fewer Jews than America; and Jews seem to exert influence not just in America, but in the English speaking countries in general (the Amren article says that Britain's political and yuppie class is being less responsive to populist concerns than the other Euro countries).

America over the last, oh, 150 years, has been actively trying to become the most diverse large country to ever exist; no, more like the most diverse country theoretically possible. Mission accomplished.

It is something to watch the consternation with which someone like Nancy Pelosi reacts to her pets biting their master's hand in such a public and humiliating way. Same thing with the ACLU lady being shouted down by BLMers screaming "liberalism is white supremacy". This is going to become more common, not less. They've created a FrankenDiversity monster that they cannot reliably control.

Wrt my realistic expectations of Trump, I have to say he's falling right about in the middle of the range. Culturally, he's exceeding them. Politically, he's coming in a little under where I expected him to be

Sid,

Exactly. And that will redound to Trump's benefit, especially among tradcons, in 2020. The #NeverTrump movement will be a shadow of it's 2016 self (and that was feeble enough to begin with). By desperately trying to portray him as the second coming of Hitler before the election, he inevitably comes out beating the expectations those of good faith but general hostility towards him had in 2016 and before.

Feryl,

I never miss any of the posts under "commentary" or "features" at AmRen.

The exit polling excerpted there is very encouraging, too. Gen Z is going to be much more blood-and-soil nationalistic than the boomers were.

Julian,

The ridiculous royal "we" in that context refers only to my family, unfortunately! My wife is pregnant with baby #3.

Politics are growing more and more tribalistic. I read on Isteve about an "informal" poll of an NFL team that found that nearly every black player was a Hillary voter, and literally every white player supported Trump. Evidently two players on a team (race unspecified) became estranged after the Hillary one learned about the other supporting Trump.

Everybody keeps up the happy talk about diversity, getting along, and so forth. But most people don't really believe it anymore, to the extent that they ever believed it (which most Boomers once did). You can feel it, hear it in the voices, see it in the faces; the heavier and heavier binging on diversity is making us sick. First came the party stage (the 60's and 70's), then came the passed out phase (the 80's-2000's). Now we've woken and entered the hung over dazed phase, and more of us are questioning why we keep getting drunk.

Blacks (always the most difficult to deal with) are the canary in the coal mine, saying that "the police" (read: whites) are out to kill them all, seeing evidence of white devil spirits everywhere. They feel entitled to run 1 of 2 major parties (no matter America's historical or current demographics, with whites always ahead and Mexicans passing them at some point in the 2000's). They demand Oscars, high profile leadership positions (in politics and sports especially), and some Millennials blacks have said that they prefer being among their own kind.

It's true that a lot of blacks (pre-2015) admired Trump's balla persona, but his "defection" to the GOP blew up his black cache. Back in the early days of the election campaign, Sailer and others (presumably Boomers) thought that Trump would make inroads among blacks that no other Republican had since the early 60's or so. Well, Trump did improve compared to the ghastly all-around performance of McCain and Romney, but still the Dems can count on having 85-95% of active black voters. X-ers and Millennials grew up with blacks having essentially a separatist black culture; irony being that when physical separatism was enforced in earnest before the 1950's, blacks were less culturally distinct. Boomers in the 60's and 70's embraced pan-racial culture (white people had permed afros in the 70's, when they couldn't do it naturally!). A chill was becoming evident as early as the 80's (Strauss and Howe said that dis-organized racially motivated beat downs were a Gen X specialty, albeit with Silent and Boomer reactionaries sometimes looking on), in spite of most white people publically coming to terms with PC by then (not criticizing inter-racial marriages and so forth).

"The exit polling excerpted there is very encouraging, too. Gen Z is going to be much more blood-and-soil nationalistic than the boomers were."

In a country like Austria, there's sill so much overwhelming whiteness (and Teutonic whiteness, at that) that political arguments/differences still don't have quite the.....edge, or.....controversy, that becomes unavoidable when minorities wield a lot of political and/or demographic weight for several generations. Should Muslims extract greater concessions from white Euros (political positions, more geographic territory, more cultural representation, etc.) than eventually France, England, etc. will be in the same boat that America is now in, with just 10-15% of population dominating the discourse of many issues. Blacks (and the liberals who love them) have learned to play the game in America over the last 40-50 years, and unless Europe takes a tougher stance with Muslims, the same will happen in many Euro countries too.

One definite advantage Europe has is that they don't have Ellis Island schlock. Ellis Island people's always play the card that American nativism is inherently terrible because it once frowned on their immigrant ancestors. In Europe, the white natives can't think of their own country "oppressing" their families (their tribe) 6 or 7 generations ago.

Also, generationally speaking, later generations of whites associate blacks with all kinds of abysmal things, and didn't grow up with nightly news reports about all the "progress" in civil rights.

To some extent, many Boomers took up blacks as a generational cause, took 'em under their wing, and still would like to make excuses for them. Though I do think a lot of Boomers have by now basically given up, esp. considering that aging people just don't care too much for younger people; why get that worked up about Tyrone, after 50-60 years of trying in vain to bring white and black people to the same page.

On this front, James Howard Kunstler (born in the late 40's, old-school Leftist who doesn't care about gays or trannies) has done some good blogging, and you can tell he hurts to admit what's become of black people. He detests separatist cultures and over the top PC, and says (like Cosby once did) what do black people expect when they can't speak clearly and pull their pants up? Fred Reed, too, who admits that back in the 50's and 60's, it all seemed so simple; be nice and understanding and apologetic and blacks ought to do just fine.

Diversity+proximity=conforming to racial personas. Agnostic has said that Nordic countries have never had the same animus towards dance music that Anglosphere white men have had for several generations, and that stems from not having flamboyant blacks gyrating all over the Nordic countries.

If one looks at how ugly Gen X music it is, perhaps there's some merit to the idea that Gen X-ers were subconsciously trying to fit into their ethnic identity via musical aesthetic(whites are introspective and anxious, blacks are loud braggarts). Pan-racial Boomers formed multi-racial bands with no sense of conflict about their identity;(Springsteen's band, the Doobie Bros, etc.), young white Boomers were comfortable making tribal dance music, young black Boomers could make softly melodic music, and so forth. I once heard a black Boomer say that he was proud of how, in the 70's, black soul artists were a fresh and warm change of pace from the ugly machismo of white rockers. He then lamented that future black artists threw it all away, often trying to be as offensive as possible to "keep it real" (a phrase that gained momentum in the 80's and beyond with younger blacks).

"To the contrary, they have plenty of ready-made historical comparisons for defending Europe from the Saracen onslaught. The Tours, Granada, Vienna, etc."

I meant that most white Europeans aren't consciously given to the idea that they had immigrant ancestors in the land in which they now dwell, and thus making them feel like they ought to be sympathetic to current immigrants. Best liberals can do is scare natives about creating new Hitlers.

The New World/Anglo diaspora groans under the "nation of immigrants" meme that's solidified with every successive immigrant wave.

I'd prefer a dropping of victims and perps entirely in favor of an unapologetic "ourselves and our posterity". Failing that, playing the game is better than principally losing by feigning rising above it.

I'd clarify that "victim" in this case fits into an us against them narrative, and can bind people together; if the moral and even factual basis for the narrative isn't air-tight, well, you can't argue with what sustains you and your team for the long term, right?

As usual, we're swimming upstream, up against the usual problem of Hajnal liners refusing to acknowledge that your first priority ought to be your family and secondly, your ethnic group. Getting Silents and Boomers back on board with the former priority wasn't terribly difficult ("Focus on the family") but the latter is a much tougher sell. After all, it's easy to see why taking care of your immediately family benefits yourself (your kids, and your relative's kids, will have a better shot at reproducing). But how do you get Western Europeans to better understand that since all other ethnic groups are openly and often cynically chauvinistic, Western Euro whites will ultimately be at a long-term strategic and resource disadvantage by not "sinking" to their level, as opposed to staying up high and naively expecting other ethnic groups to eventually meet you up there?

The fact that we're expected to logically and morally explain why diversity is bad says it all. Almost everywhere in the entire world, it's taken for granted, considered utterly natural, that if you work hard to have a home, you don't just invite complete strangers in for room and board. And that applies on an individual level and a collective national level.

No society is perfect, but Japan has perhaps the best combo. of higher living standards and concerns for ethnic and national well-being. People work hard, trust each other, and so forth, but nobody feels obligated to invite strangers inside for a life-long stay. The viability of injecting other ethnic groups is unknown, but it might as well remain a mystery. Why jeopardize a good ( or good enough) thing?

So one cool thing about the little village of Wollersdorf which is my maternal ancestral homeland is that this village (which is beautiful and by no means poor) went 40% for the Freedom Party of Austria which is the 'far right' party to the right of the Austrian People's Party of Sebastian Kurz. In Wollersdorf, the Austrian people's party placed second, well behind. More conservative than almost any other district in lower Austria.

I always sensed that part of me was extremely based, but now I see that being based is in my blood, heh. I honestly had no idea of the political views of my mother's hometown until now. I knew one aunt and uncle were leftists who liked to vacation in Communist countries like Cuba and Cambodia, but it seems they were the extreme exception.

I wonder what the Freedom Party will ask for, to form a coalition. One thing I know is that the Freedom Party is actually against making already-received refugees learn German and integrate. Because they need to go back.

Yep. Steve Sailer's "race is an extended family" is a good starting point, but I've been using it for over a decade now with people and it strikes every WEIRDO as a novelty to think about it that way. I'm sure it probably struck me that way the first time I read it, too, though I don't remember for sure. It shows how far there is to go.

Julian,

Whatever I have to do for my people, I'll do! Ready and able, sir.

Re: polygamy, I can see it transitionally but not ultimately. Monogamy is the best deal for the largest number of men. Sex technology may change those dynamics, but for now that's how I see it.

Dan,

Inspired me to look up my ancestral home in the Brexit results. It went 52%-48% in favor of "leave". As middling as it gets. Ah well, it could've been worse.

Wrt grandparents, I remember you saying as much years ago, and my personal experience could not have proven you more correct. My parents are 5 minutes away and my wife's are 15 minutes, and both sets are always glad to help out (and our kids are glad when they do!).

"Whites are electoral kangz. We are positioned to remain so well into the future. Appeal to and then deliver on ourselves and our posterity and enjoy permanent ruling majority status. It's not easy, but it is fairly simple."

A "Yankee Imperialist" responded to a post by the blog "Those Who Can See". Trenchant analysis.

Preserving rights "for one's posterity" repudiated feudalistic notions. Similar wording exists in the Federalist Papers and American law rooted in British traditions. Even accepting "Our posterity," means the descendants of those citizens only at the time of ratification, given the healthy dose of non-British in the United States who were among the ratifiers, the concept simply cannot be granted to the British exclusively. And, of course there is the naturalization clause, which assuredly had no ethnocentric provision. One could argue the slave trade clause had such had such an ethnocentric position, but it is clear it was not aimed at non-British or non-whites. And then there is the naturalization clause, which certainly had no ethnocentric provision to it.

Posterity does NOT refer only to one's own children, but as with the synonymous "legacy" also has the broader meaning of what we leave behind. The Founding Fathers were self-consciously leaving behind other than a genetic legacy. The motto "Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects their legacy, setting up the mechanisms of government they invented to secure liberty against tyranny. Recall Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: "The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...." By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it, to an outsider, that is, someone not the posterity of a signer of the document. The Founding Fathers clearly desired "to invite foreigners of merit and republican principles among us." Indeed, the intention was whites and Europeans, but who imagined at that time non-whites and women would be able to embrace these principles? But there is no racial or gender criteria to adhering to republican ideals in the Constitution. Of course, that does not mean foreigners have the right to enter our shores, as Congress sets the standards for immigration. But the proposition remains that there are hoops for newcomers to jump through.

Naturalization Act of 1790--offered only to "white men of good character"--addressed much of what the commenter putatively talks about being implied in this way or that in the constitution. It is actually ready made for the contemporary situation middle America faces.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was a product of the times and NOT the overarching goal of America's racial and ethnic future. The Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the criteria for immigration with those newcomers blending in and articulating what is posterity from that new baseline. In other words, future generations of Americans were given the liberty to decide what is and what is not “an American”. At the time of the Founding Fathers, their worldview was European, which is other than surprising. However, as we have seen throughout the course of human history, perspectives change over time due to a host of factors.

Americans in the past and at present identify with American civilization, with its underpinnings of representative democracy and capitalism. Certainly, political and economic concepts from Western Civilization played a major role in the development of American institutions, but the Founding Fathers granted liberty to its citizens to set the course for its own future. While posterity originally referred to those who founded the nation, the die was NOT set, as evident by the power of the people to set immigration criteria, which has noticeably changed since the inaugural 1790 law.

"So if posterity can change to become indistinguishable from propositionalism, then it can be changed back."

The proposition was for the Founding Fathers to enable Congress and future generations to set forth the criteria for immigration. Now, it is extremely unlikely that the House and Senate would ban non-whites from entering our shores for an extended period of time.

"It doesn't matter (much), but were we to drop the founding generation into The Current Year, the Alt Right is probably the contemporary political/cultural movement they'd feel most comfortable in."

Really now? In what specific areas? Do tell. From your perspective, what are the connections here?